The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to a decision rejecting an asylum appeal by a woman who said she had been trafficked from Nigeria for prostitution. The court concluded that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decisive finding was that state protection would be available to her if she returned to Nigeria.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 30 July 2010, concerned an appeal decision made on 28 November 2007. That decision upheld a negative recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner in a report dated 23 February 2007. The applicants were identified in the judgment only as S. U. and N. T. U., a minor represented by her mother and next friend, S. U.
The first applicant’s account, as set out in the judgment, was that she had twice been trafficked from Nigeria for prostitution, first to the United Kingdom in 2004 and later to Belfast in 2006. She said she escaped to Dublin, where her child was born on 23 September 2006, and claimed asylum on 4 October that year. A fingerprint search had linked her to a person using a different name who had been assessed as 16 on arrival in the UK in December 2004.
The court noted that the Tribunal had expressed doubts about parts of her account, including her return to Nigeria and the actions of her aunt’s friend. But Mr Justice Cooke found no express or implied rejection of the essential claim that she had been a minor trafficked for prostitution. The Tribunal’s reason for rejecting the appeal was its assessment that she could obtain protection from the Nigerian state and non-governmental organisations, including through the national anti-trafficking agency NAPTIP.
The applicants argued that the Tribunal had failed to follow guidance for assessing claims by minors and had not properly assessed credibility. The court said the guidance was authoritative but did not have the force of law. A decision could be quashed only if a departure disclosed a legal flaw. It also found that the Tribunal had referred to principles on the treatment of minors and that the applicants had not identified a particular principle that was overlooked or explained how that affected the result.
The court said its role in judicial review was to assess the legality of the decision, not to investigate general Tribunal policy. As the decision clearly stated its reason for rejecting the appeal, the court found no demonstrated legal flaw. It refused the substantive judicial review application; the asylum appeal decision remained in place.